I already showed in my platonic forms thread that there are an infinite number of iterations to each instant, and that this is absolute chaos; the inability to discern something. Yet we have no problem calling the Pacific Ocean an ocean and we have no problem calling the Nile river the Nile river the Nile river. The ship of theseusness of the ship of Theseus.

Errr... you speak like you're overly familiar with the Ship of Theseus thought experiment, and then you reel off "The ship of theseusness of the ship of Theseus" like it's a simple thing. Do you actually understand the issue with it, or are you just ignoring/forgetting it/pushing it aside?

It was Heraclitus who so wisely and astutely said "You can never step into the same river; for new waters are always flowing on you. No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he is not the same man." and yet you have no issue speaking of oceans like clearly and precisely identifiable things in spite of their constant changing and the profound ambiguity of where a river ends and an ocean starts.

Your "solution" is simply to appeal to essence - a throwback to pre-Existentialism. Concretely it's obvious that identity is especially dubious in cases like the aforementioned, and it's only through the generalisation of abstraction that you can hope to wave your hands at some kind of identity, template and permanence. If you observe from really far away, the ocean/land divide appears distinct - so just stand far enough back from anything and then even things like identity can be clear, right? Stand really far back and Platonic forms can exist!

The aversion to examination and precision... it's one way of living your life - as the proverbial armchair philosopher.

Is it impossible to name objects as an illusion? What about illusions? A small oversight from someone standing so far away from reality, perhaps. "Stand at the right distance and any illusion can seem real" seems to be your whole point...

Ecmandu wrote:You must have a continuity of consciousness (platonic form - just like the ocean exists), to be able to make your argument. This solve as identity!!

Continuity solves as discrete identity? Don't you mean it's the exact opposite? It's possible to think of the ocean as a discrete identity, therefore identity has no issue...

Ecmandu wrote:Like I stated earlier, it's the sweet spot of perceptual acuity that allows us to formulate ANY equality, even the ones you are trying to make. What this means is that it's a direct contradiction that you're making to assume through equality that an equality doesn't exist outside out perceptual acuity. You're contradicting yourself.

Are you going to ignore the variation in range or size of these "sweet spots" of perception, depending on what you're identifying? For some things this range is huge - clearly identiable things are identifiable from close to far away e.g. trees, cars, human bodies. Some things are only clearly identifiable from really far away like oceans, either where you're so far from any rivers leading into it that you can't see he issue of where it starts, or you're so far above that these rivers become too hard to make out, or if you look so quickly to one or take a snapshot so it appears like it is not constantly changing. Some things are only "identifiable" from so far away conceptually, into the generalisation of templates; and even at this level of abstraction they aren't that clearly definable.

The birth of identity is in the ability to ignore contradictory evidence. It's in the opposite of clear and careful observation, critique and precision.

There you go: identity is the child of ignorance.Pray to the god of willful blindness and even the most vague identities can exist, and the most abstract realms of templates are your guiding lights.I think this is where you want to be.

Nice try, but all of these "anti illusion" theories of no identity as the solution rely on the infinite regress of objects, and since nobody can count an infinity, even god itself, this forces the proof of platonic forms, not only as a solution to this problem, but it also solves the infinite regress of existence never beginning, without contradiction (something from nothing), by showing that eternal templates (not infinitely regressive) explain how we can see objects out of infinity without actually having to process a full infinity (which would take forever)

I already demonstrated to you why this has to be the case. An infinity cannot be itself without existing, which, even though the infinity exists, forces the finite, which is why we have identity and part of why existence exists instead of not existing.

Ecmandu wrote:By calling me a worthless price of shit ( which yes you are doing ) you deny objectivism

Were there a competition for the most ridiculous non sequitur ever this would be a serious contender for that positionAnd it wasnt your post that I was replying to either so your eyseight is fading as well as your ability to reason logicallyI knew I should have stayed away from this thread oh well never mind

Ecmandu wrote:By calling me a worthless price of shit ( which yes you are doing ) you deny objectivism

Were there a competition for the most ridiculous non sequitur ever this would be a serious contender for that positionAnd it wasnt your post that I was replying to either so your eyseight is fading as well as your ability to reason logicallyI knew I should have stayed away from this thread oh well never mind

It shows you have no intellectual capacity here.

You addressed the totality of me as a response to someone on ILP. That objectivists, especially, ecmandu, because you named me, are the biggest worthless prices of shit in all of existence, by the objective standard of EVERYONE who ever lived (yes, you used a universal in your reply to sihlloutte, and would be better if blowing his brains out. Read your fucking post dude.

And read between the fucking lines.

Last edited by Ecmandu on Thu May 09, 2019 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ecmandu wrote:Nice try, but all of these "anti illusion" theories of no identity as the solution rely on the infinite regress of objects, and since nobody can count an infinity, even god itself, this forces the proof of platonic forms, not only as a solution to this problem, but it also solves the infinite regress of existence never beginning, without contradiction (something from nothing), by showing that eternal templates (not infinitely regressive) explain how we can see objects out of infinity without actually having to process a full infinity (which would take forever)

I already demonstrated to you why this has to be the case. An infinity cannot be itself without existing, which, even though the infinity exists, forces the finite, which is why we have identity and part of why existence exists instead of not existing.

Ok you're retreating back to your infinite regress argument from 6 months ago. We already buried this one through the concepts of continuity and relativity. You have to believe everything is a sequence of discrete and absolute snapshots for this nonsense of yours to make any sense whatsoever.

I think I've pretty much nailed it on the head that your realm of eternal templates is just a fantasy world where you ignore contrary evidence and only think in black and white. All hail the god of ignorance. His name is Ecmandu.

Nice to see surreptitious is aware of your affliction too.But Jesus, dude, stop bringing this out of me - I don't want to have to continually put you in your place like this. It feels like flogging a dead horse - still no response to my offer of tuition? You'd really benefit, and I offer it for free. It's worth it just to put a stop to whatever this delusion is that you're riding on.

Ecmandu wrote:Nice try, but all of these "anti illusion" theories of no identity as the solution rely on the infinite regress of objects, and since nobody can count an infinity, even god itself, this forces the proof of platonic forms, not only as a solution to this problem, but it also solves the infinite regress of existence never beginning, without contradiction (something from nothing), by showing that eternal templates (not infinitely regressive) explain how we can see objects out of infinity without actually having to process a full infinity (which would take forever)

I already demonstrated to you why this has to be the case. An infinity cannot be itself without existing, which, even though the infinity exists, forces the finite, which is why we have identity and part of why existence exists instead of not existing.

Ok you're retreating back to your infinite regress argument from 6 months ago. We already buried this one through the concepts of continuity and relativity. You have to believe everything is a sequence of discrete and absolute snapshots for this nonsense of yours to make any sense whatsoever.

I think I've pretty much nailed it on the head that your realm of eternal templates is just a fantasy world where you ignore contrary evidence and only think in black and white. All hail the god of ignorance. His name is Ecmandu.

Nice to see surreptitious is aware of your affliction too.But Jesus, dude, stop bringing this out of me - I don't want to have to continually put you in your place like this. It feels like flogging a dead horse - still no response to my offer of tuition? You'd really benefit, and I offer it for free. It's worth it just to put a stop to whatever this delusion is that you're riding on.

Continuum theory is the same as infinite regress.

Analog is by far more problematic than snapshots. I'm arguing for snapshots being necessary because of analog

Ecmandu wrote:You addressed the totality of me as a response to someone on ILP. That objectivists especially ecmandu because you named me are the biggest worthless pieces of shit in all of existence by the objective standard of EVERYONE who ever lived [ yes you used a universal in your reply to silhouette and would be better if blowing his brains out ] Read your fucking post dude

And read between the fucking lines

Calm down Eccy its just a difference of opinion stop ranting like a madman

Ecmandu wrote:You addressed the totality of me as a response to someone on ILP. That objectivists especially ecmandu because you named me are the biggest worthless pieces of shit in all of existence by the objective standard of EVERYONE who ever lived [ yes you used a universal in your reply to silhouette and would be better if blowing his brains out ] Read your fucking post dude

And read between the fucking lines

Calm down Eccy its just a difference of opinion stop ranting like a madman

No don't touch him! Stand back and let him rage. This is the progress we've been waiting for. It's that anger that might very well be the thing he needed to get laid. I say make that sonofabitch so infuriated that he shoves his keyboard off the desk, smashes his hyperdimensional mirror, puts his blue coat on, marches right down to the chili's bar n grill and buys the first hottie he sees a beer in a magnificent spectacle of approach escalation. And when she says 'yes', by god she'll mean YES.

we may have just made a breakthrough in ecman's therapy. Whatever you do, DON'T CALM HIM DOWN!

No don't touch him! Stand back and let him rage. This is the progress we've been waiting for. It's that anger that might very well be the thing he needed to get laid. I say make that sonofabitch so infuriated that he shoves his keyboard off the desk, smashes his hyperdimensional mirror, puts his blue coat on, marches right down to the chili's bar n grill and buys the first hottie he sees a beer in a magnificent spectacle of approach escalation. And when she says 'yes', by god she'll mean YES.

we may have just made a breakthrough in ecman's therapy. Whatever you do, DON'T CALM HIM DOWN!

You guys are both funny (hilariously so, not haha)

So here's the deal.

I know for a fact that evolutionary runaway sexual selection has conditioned your minds to parrot what you need to parrot to get sex from women.

You'll even go so far as to state that something as self evident as your own existence (and mine for sure) is just subjective.

Like I always say to you guys who think you're these gritty postmodern badasses. If you took a mind like mine and gave it morals like yours, you'd rue the day you were ever born.

No don't touch him! Stand back and let him rage. This is the progress we've been waiting for. It's that anger that might very well be the thing he needed to get laid. I say make that sonofabitch so infuriated that he shoves his keyboard off the desk, smashes his hyperdimensional mirror, puts his blue coat on, marches right down to the chili's bar n grill and buys the first hottie he sees a beer in a magnificent spectacle of approach escalation. And when she says 'yes', by god she'll mean YES.

we may have just made a breakthrough in ecman's therapy. Whatever you do, DON'T CALM HIM DOWN!

And to think that someday nature might compel me to debate him!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Ecmandu wrote:I know for a fact that evolutionary runaway sexual selection has conditioned your minds to parrot what you need to parrot to get sex from womenYou ll even go so far as to state that something as self evident as your own existence ( and mine for sure ) is just subjective

Number one - I am celibate so have no need to get sex from womenNumber two - my existence is self evident and therefore objective

Ecmandu wrote:I know for a fact that evolutionary runaway sexual selection has conditioned your minds to parrot what you need to parrot to get sex from womenYou ll even go so far as to state that something as self evident as your own existence ( and mine for sure ) is just subjective

Number one - I am celibate so have no need to get sex from womenNumber two - my existence is self evident and therefore objective

You mentioned that before.

Well, I'm an incel because women only sexually consent to no means yes relationships.

And I'm trying to remain a shred of dignity on a planet that just doesn't care anymore.

Sorry to confuse you with subjectivists.

So... here are my thoughts ...

I don't think I have much more to say on ILP...

Hyperdimensional mirror realities are the only solution to all problems.

So, I think I'll just fade off and merge with the cosmos. (That's not a suicide note!!).

Postmodernists bore me now.

Once I figured out that's all women will fuck, I lost interest in the species.

I like reference.

Oh well.

I just realized...

I'll complete my posting history here by talking about the ins and outs of hyperdimensional mirror realities.

When silhouette argues that identity doesn't exist in any way, but then uses identity to make his arguments, that's pretty much it for me.

Silhouette, there isn't a difference between contradiction and a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are inference contradictions, not explicit.

You hit upon the contradiction of your fallacy at the convergence point of the fallacy by stating you don't exist. In this way, you are a direct contradiction (not implicit) of your fallacy.

If they want to confine themselves to limitation, then let them.

To say one is bound to determinism is to say we are confined, let’s just say there is no confinement within determinism itself because it has already determined itself free, by there being an infinity of options and change within its “confines” itself.

I can do just about whatever I want to do within the universal laws in terms of inventing and being whom I want, I’m not going to let slaves tell me those options aren’t available to my selection just because they don’t appear to them. The limits one has are the limits one creates.

I can be an astronaut, can be a musician, a writer.. but I have chosen psychology in school and am merely waiting. Options are limitless.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Artimas wrote:I can do just about whatever I want to do within the universal laws in terms of inventing and being whom I want, I’m not going to let slaves tell me those options aren’t available to my selection just because they don’t appear to them. The limits one has are the limits one creates.

I can be an astronaut, can be a musician, a writer.. but I have chosen psychology in school and am merely waiting. Options are limitless.

The conflation of possibility with actuality.

You "could have been" an astronaut, a musician, a writer - and yet you weren't. Why not?There will have been reasons that determined you not to choose them.If you choose them in future, there will be a reason that determines it.

Options are "theoretically" limitless, but in practice some things will simply never occur to you. Would an Ancient Greek have been considering what social media apps to use? Would the first humans be considering the fluid dynamics that are necessary to successfully propel a rocket to the moon? They didn't even know what the moon was. Even today we won't in our wildest dreams be considering the everyday options available to people far enough into the future.The "freest" of people do not have infinite options available to them in reality whether I "tell you" this is the case or not - the most basic reason being that we are finite beings with finite brains and memories with finite (although huge numbers of) connections, thoughts take finite time to flit recognisably in our consciousness, and we have a finite life span - mathematically options are limited.

Are you under the impression that anyone is a slave to mathematics? Are you suggesting that 2+2 could equal 5 to the non-slave?

You already make the concession "I can do just about whatever I want to do within the universal laws", which in themselves are limits. Are you saying that if you remove those limits, free any slavelike tendencies in your mind, the effects described by gravity can cease to apply to you and things around you? Magnets could cease to operate to one who frees their mind from Determinism? By your admission I don't think you are, and yet in the same sentence you argue that you are. This is your contradiction. Funnily enough the stability of your entire being would cease in an instant if you freed yourself from universal laws.

By all means, be in awe of the large number of options that *do* occur to you, the uncommon ideas that *do* occur to you, and the unique paths that you actually *do* choose as a result of these things, but in reality there are limits you simply can't shake whether I "tell you" or not. It's not like I'm ordering you to reduce your thinking, you're reduced whether I say anything or not... I'm sorry you don't like this, but by the above arguments and all the other ones I've said, and more no doubt, life is a limit and this is reality. I feel like a parent telling their kid Santa isn't real. I've already pointed out the irony that it's quite possible that my mind is "more free" than yours for being able to abandon the romance of unlimited Free Will - I wonder if you've given this any serious thought yet - and by serious I don't mean assuming it's wrong before you even consider it. You have all your free thinking ahead of you - call me a slave all you like and it's still psychological projection.

From what I can tell, Free Will advocates can't square the fact that they have a large imagination that seems not to be contained, with the reality that it all can be and is contained. Funnily enough, your concession of "I can do just about whatever I want to do within the universal laws" sums up every single limit there is on both action and thought. Outer space, the earth, animals - even the human brain operates exactly how it does exactly because of these universal laws alone. Nothing more is needed, which is why the "four fundamental forces" are so named. Saying this is actually an admission that you are an entirely deterministic being whether you can accept this or not.

Ecmandu wrote:I just got frustrated with silhouette here.

When silhouette argues that identity doesn't exist in any way, but then uses identity to make his arguments, that's pretty much it for me.

Silhouette, there isn't a difference between contradiction and a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are inference contradictions, not explicit.

You hit upon the contradiction of your fallacy at the convergence point of the fallacy by stating you don't exist. In this way, you are a direct contradiction (not implicit) of your fallacy.

Add it to the pile of made up wishful thinking if you want...

Formal fallacies are the most explicit of fallacies, e.g. (P->Q, Q) -> PContrast this with a contradiction: ¬P ^ P where there is mutual exclusivity.

A clear difference. Now, the way you think is to reduce things to very specific circumstances where the difference is no longer clear, in order to justify False Equivalence - this is a logical fallacy.You don't like logical fallacies since your arguments rely on them, so you try to explain them away by the same means.

And you get frustrated with people who call you out on your bullshit...I appreciate the effort to try and create, but it doesn't mean you'll be any good at it. Sure, keep trying, learn from the mistakes people teach you and move on to new things but you're obsessed with a small number of terrible, flawed ideas that you just won't move on from - like a song-writer insisting they have written the greatest song of all time and trying to perform it better and better their whole life, without anyone else liking it. There's clearly something psychologically amiss with you, which is my greatest worry - it feels like your entire identity and emotional sense of self-worth is grounded in bad ideas. Fortunately one of humanity's greatest strengths is denial, but that just makes me sad for you. Not your problem, I guess - religious fanatics can spend their whole lives in echo chambers without ever admitting fault in their nonsense, I'm sure you can do it too.

FYI, I said identity has existence in terms of utility, just not in terms of truth. You say I argue "that identity doesn't exist in any way".Continue to misunderstand and misrepresent me to yourself and others if it makes you feel better, but you're a liar if you do.You complain that I use identity, when I plainly said I do and why, and it's still a Tu Quoque fallacy to criticise this. The fact that you don't understand fallacies doesn't excuse you here (which ironically is the personal incredulity fallacy).

You know, it's funny. You try and equate logical fallacy and logical contradiction, whilst also saying logical fallacies always have holes where proofs using logical contradiction never have holes.I mean... come on Have your cake or eat it - you can't have both.Consider for the first time in your life that you might be wrong.

You're really going to argue that Tu Quoque doesn't have a convergence point, that doesn't make it a false equivalency in the special case of stating that identity is false (with the exception that it's utile)?

What I actually mean by this, after having read through all of your posts again, is that it would take a very terse person like myself easily 30 pages to go through all those disproofs.

Your posts are not intellectual work, they just create busy work for intellectuals.

So here's the deal, I decided only to focus on the Tu Qouque, because if you're wrong on that, you have to backpedal on all your arguments in this thread about freewill, you have to return to the corner that I put you in.